SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend....
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sully- who wrote (7791)3/1/2005 4:02:51 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (3) of 35834
 
Europe confirms Supreme Court's distain for American policy outcomes, high Court finds

Powerline

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the practice of executing individuals for crimes they committed below the age of 18 is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Justice Kennedy wrote for the 5-4 majority (Chief Justice Rehnquist heard the case, and thus voted even though there was no "tie" without him).

Justice Kennedy relied on international law and practice to "confirm" his view that the juvenile death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. He also cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the U.S. signed only subject to the reservation of its right to impose the death penalty for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age.

In my view, the reliance of foreign law and practice is a symptom of the Court's problem, not the problem itself. The Court has appropriated from the American people the role of social arbiter. Thus, it strikes down longstanding policies and practices adopted through the democratic process on the grounds that five or more Justices personally don't approve. This creates a question of legitimacy which causes the Justices to scrounge for support. Since the Justices preferences often don't correspond to the preferences of majorities here, they naturally look to Europe. They lack the political savvy to realize that doing so only makes their work seem even less legitimate.

Or perhaps I'm completely wrong. Maybe the offending Justices don't really care about whether the Court is perceived as legitimate, and just refer to international stuff because they are trained to cite things.

NRO's Corner is buzzing about the decision. It also has a useful link to Julian Ku.

HINDROCKET adds: This is very bad. It's also quite odd: The Supreme Court is disdainful of public opinion in the U.S. as expressed by the laws passed by Congress and the state legislatures, but respectful of public opinion in Europe. I can understand the Washington social structure within which this world-view makes sense, but can anyone articulate a philosophy of jurisprudence in which European opinion, however manifested, is given priority over American opinion, as expressed in laws passed by legislators?

powerlineblog.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News